Partly convincing
I am afraid the part about the player leaping on the DW as soon as possible is not a convincing case as the player believed this game was OK. Her move to 3 card poker can be explained because this game also has the excitement of having a big payout potential on a single bet. I can't see the relevance to her first bet happening to be 400, this is simply the table max, and the fact that is matches the deposit and bonus is irrelevant. I suspect the player simply wanted to go for another big win by playing large bets. Surely if the aim was to abuse the bonus I would have expected a switch to slots on low stakes and autoplay to clear the WR painlessly overnight, followed by the full 8000 being requested. (I am assuming the player has not lied to the forum in her posts, or otherwise attempted to mislead).
I have played just this pattern without a bonus when I have hit a royal flush. I take a few bets on the 3-card poker to see if it is hot, and try the other VP games.
If I was wanting to win from a Trident bonus, I would probably start on 3-card poker, given that last month JorB and A&F did not apply. With all VP now excluded, I would still try a little 3-card poker, but would then play the free spin slots.
If only slots were allowed, and I wanted to go for the big hit, I would lump 4.50 per spin on 5-reel drive till any 5 in a row hit and then played something like Sonic Boom on a low stake. This "abuse" strategy is still available under the current terms.
Players who take a bonus expect to have a chance of winning big, to hammer the terms down to the extent that winning is not seen as desirable is not going to attract new customers. I would love to know how such a balance was built up on DW from 400, this alone seems extremely lucky, and I would expect 99.9% of bonus hunters trying this would lose everything pretty quickly on the variance. True, JorB might give them a chance to clear WR and take the bonus, but not anything with a higher variance.
Whatever the reputation of a casino, I am wary of such confiscation terms as the decision is subjective (unless applied in all cases). Mikki has not mentioned whether any of the other 4 restricted games played were also restricted in the T & C the player claimed to have thought applied, this could weaken the players case significantly, as the current belief is that the player only played DW because this was a new restriction not present in April.
I recall the case earlier of the 86 year old Israeli who argued with Fortune Lounge against the confiscation clause. The forum rallied round in part and Fortune Lounge reconsidered and allowed another chance. Personally, I found 86 year old Israeli woman gambling online hard to swallow, and I didn't really think the player stood much chance as this was a pretty clear circumstantial indicator of a player "trick", yet only a couple of posts brought this up.
I would urge all MG casinos to use EZBonus, such problems as this simply could not happen. The bonuses on offer should be reassessed so that they have the same expected value as before. Another thing to look at is severely cutting the max wager size on new player accounts. MG supports this, Casino Action used it last year on bonus and tournament accounts. These two changes will prevent the arguments about WR, and will prevent the big bet scenario used by some bonus chasers to get a head start.
Another way of offering a bonus might to be to give back 1%, or so of total wagering in the first x days the account is open. The cashback will be weighted according to the games that qualify so as to not provide a long term positive expectation that could be ground out on autoplay.
